Jefferson's Army of Nation Builders - New York Times opinion. BLUF: Some argue that our emphasis on nation-building is harming our conventional warfighting capabilities. Dominic Tierney, with a focus on education at the U.S. Military Academy, argues that we require a "multi-purpose military" in keeping with the soldier's role as a builder, not just a destroyer.
Comments
If you want to learn something new... read something old.
According to Andrew J. Birtle in his insightful book "U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations Doctrine 1860-1941"... in regard to nation-building, modernization, political/economic development and indirect rule... quote: "Central to progressivism (builder) was the notion that informed and enlightened professionals, be they doctors, engineers, or bureaucrats, could improve society from the top down by applying their specialized knowledge to create more rational and efficient institutions." Army officers shared in these progressive values... Birtle goes on to say that progressive values not only endowed "the officer corps as a whole with an underlying philosophy about social organization and reform, but it also provided a rationale for those officers who were disposed to taking a more active role in social and political affairs."
The idea of government by enlightened, paternal and benevolent experts... most likely led COL Elwell Otis to address the West Point graduating class of 1882 thus...
"Be not deceived and accept the foolish delusion... that the soldier's obligations only begin when summoned to meet a foreign enemy or to put down armed resistance which has overthrown civil power... A soldier is now expected to exert himself within proper limits to preserve and organize peace. He should labor, in unison with the citizen and philanthropist, to impress and extend our civilization. So vast is the field of operations of our small army, and so scattered are the troops, it is possible, if not extremely probable, that in a few short years, whatever may be your age and rank, you may be obliged to administer affairs wherein considerable knowledge of civil matters may be necessary."
Nothing new under the sun... well... in this case at least 1882 C.E.
r/
MAC
Mr Tierney leads off his piece with this statement:
"THIS Veterans Day, a great debate is going on in the American military. On one side are the traditionalists who believe that our armed forces should continue to maintain as their core mission waging conventional state-on-state wars, like the first Persian Gulf war. On the other side are the reformers, like Gen. David Petraeus, who want to build on the lessons the Army and Marine Corps have learned in the irregular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and broaden the militarys skill set to fashion a more effective counterinsurgency and nation-building force."
Wrong, so wrong. It is striking that the editors of the New York Times let such a factually incorrect statement onto their pages. Just like I asked of Max Boot a number of weeks ago when he said the same sort of thing on one of his blog posts, I ask again now to Mr Tierney:
WHERE IS THIS "GREAT DEBATE" OCCURRING WITHIN THE AMERICAN MILITARY BETWEEN TRADITIONALIST AND REFORMERS?
Really, can Mr. Tierney point somewhere (beyond some interesting and stimulating discussions on certain military blogs like SWJ, AM, and Rickss) where this great debate is actually occurring?
Is it happening in certain professional journals (sort of like the debate over Active Defense doctrine in "Military Review" between 1978 and 1982 where over 110 articles were published in direct criticism of that doctrine)?
Are Army and other service generals and flag officers arguing over the issues in this so called great debate, if so who are they and where is it occurring?
Is this great debate occurring formally and in open observation at places like the Army War College, Fort Leavenworth, Fort Benning, etc?
The answer to the above question is an obvious no, there is no great debate occurring.
Mr Tierney should be happy about his factual mistake since the army that he desires of Nation Builders built by his beloved reformers is here.
These are the days, for better or worse, of the Reformed American Army in embrace of its new way of war.